cnn legal analyst and criminal defense attorney joey jackson is with us. on tuesday when he steps in fronts of that judge? >> this is what is called a supreme court arraignment. a grand jury of 23 people and majority 12 say there is reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that he committed it. then you're indicted. right? he wasn't gited indictindicted . you enter not guilty plea and the case is adjourned until a later time. the only wrinkle may be there whether a reapplication for bail because of change circumstances he has now been indicted and i don't anticipate that happening and widely anticipated he would be indicted any way. as formality under new york state laut and he has to be arraigned on those charges and that will happen on tuesday. >> on friday another lawsuit filed in federal court by three women alleging similar charges. does that have any effect here? >> it won't have any effective directly on the criminal case now. certainly will not have an effect as it relates to next week. where it may have an effect is whether a jud

. >>> legal analyst and defense attorney joey jackson with us now.afort's attorneys assert the new charges were based on the thinnest of evidence, we understands an 84-second phone call, text messages between manafort and two former business associates. what has to be present in those communications to incriminate or bring these charges? >> good morning. you know, obviously there's an imperative on any defense attorney, including myself, to get the upper hand in terms of public relations. you're not going to say, my goodness, my client is guilty. they caught him red-handed. you'll say the evidence is thin, the evidence doesn't reach a standard beyond a reasonable doubt, and we will prevail. the reality is this -- the reality is that the special counsel is asserting and alleging that there was tampering as it relates to witnesses. what is problematic about that is generally if they know that, they have documentary evidence in the form of text messages and this other information -- and other information because the government watches you and follows yo

i want to bring in joey jackson, criminal defense attorney. , but anything involving harvey weinstein is of such interest to so many people, joey. even as he's there, and he appears this is a key part of the process, right? he'll be saying not guilty when he is informed by a clerk of the charges. but it is also a time where the prosecution has to reveal to the defense, right, through discovery, the goods that they have on weinstein. >> good point. good morning to you, brianna. that's coming. what happens is, just to bring us to today, we know a grand jury convened, right. a grand jury consists of 23 people and defense attorneys like myself are quick to say it is an accusation. those 23 people, a majority, that's 12, have to vote two things, number one, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed, and number two that harvey weinstein committed it. that takes the case from where it was before, to the supreme court, where it is now. and so to your point, what happens in court today, as part of this formality of due process

joey jackson is a cnn legal analyst and criminal defense attorney. s a cnn political analyst and deputy washington bureau chief for "the boston globe." good to see you both. joey, let me begin with you. what did you think of giuliani's remarks? >> giuliani is advising on pardons, the president is giving pardons, and the president we know is his own person. if this is not a signal to all those who are embraced in this investigation -- who are embroiled in this investigation, who are under indictment or about to be under indictment, i don't know what is. stay the course, this historical precedent, right, you heard him say, for pardons being issued by various other presidents. support our president, you've seen him give pardons before, scooter libby, you've seen him give -- d'souza, we've got your back. that's the signal i take that it's very much on the president's mind. final thing is that you saw, we heard, right, you played the clip from the president. and his refrain, it's very unfair, witch hunt. you go back 12 years. so i think that sets the stage

joey jackson, despite president's full plate, he had time to tweet this earlier today.te, sanjay gupta it ironic getting ready to go to canada to fight for our country on trade, we have the worst trade deals made and then singapore to meet with north korea on the nuclear problem but back home we still have the 13 angry democrats pushing the witch hunt. he called robert mueller's team biassed and conflicted. what is your reaction when you hear that? >> you know, my reaction is two fold, wolf. one is a fixation and a strategic move to undermine the investigation. start with the fixation. if you look at the tweets and you had, you know, some sort of mash together of the tweets they would be plentiful with regard to the investigation and these angry democrats and it's no good and it's no collusion. et cetera. et cetera. that's persistent. you could say there's a fixation there and part of a largest strategy. remember, we are dealing with a master brander. right? and this to be clear is a campaign. what do i mean by that? themes to get in the jury's mind and angry democrats,

let's dig deeper with our specialist joey jackson. our legal analyst tweeted that he had absolute power to pardon himself and the white house press secretary sarah sanders said the president is not above the law but reiterated he hasn't done anything wrong. do you have a clear sense of where his lawyers are heading right now with all of the various statements? >> well you know, wolf, i think what they're doing is what lawyers always do and that is argue in the alternative. what does it mean? it means the president hasn't done anything wrong so what would be the basis for pardoning himself. that is argument one. but argument two in the alternative, if he did, he could pardon himself and so here is where it stands. the fact is that it would be legally questionable and politically untenable to the legal issue. we know that a president can presumptiveln and we saw it with ford and nixon and avoiding any indictment and the question is if you do that, what is the constitution say. it is silent as to the issue of whether the president could

joey jackson, the president has ridiculed the notion of hiring more judges to adequately deal with theum claims at the u.s.-mexico border. he tweeted once again today, and you have to build a wall and hire a lot more border agents, how much of this crisis from your legal perspective comes down to a lack of federal resources in the judicial system in processing these people. >> zero. let me be clear about that. money is always relevant and important. it has no role here whatsoever. let me get this straight. this is not at all a money problem. it is a political and humanitarian problem. so we have -- what are the estimates, $70 billion to build a border wall. plenty of money for that. $25 billion and put it in a bill and get some compromise on immigration, plenty of money for that but you don't have $200,000 to hire -- what do they cost -- an immigration judge because they try to mete out justice and they would have to adjudicate claims and if they are adjudicating asylum claims and they would left one of the brown people infest the boards of the border and over run the country and it ha

. >> let's bring in joey jackson right now.ou saw those text messages between michael cohen and keith davidson. how strong is this case? >> it's predicated upon more than text messages. let me address the texts first. in the texts you have michael cohen, who's advocating for his client. he wants for sure her to do this interview with sean hannity to disprove this in touch story coming out as to the affair. michael cohen is texting what's going on, we need to get the interview done. quite frankly, keith davidson's responses back, he's responding but there's no smoking gun in terms of i'm assisting, don't worry, i'll get it done for you. it's not uncommon for attorneys to correspond both on the phone and by text. i don't see any smoking gun in the text messages with respect to colluding itself. the other issues of the complaint concerning whether or not he's handle over the file, that is keith davidson, whether there's some basis for him to maintain the file because the file, that is her file, not his, it's the client's file. why

joey jackson, legal analyst, with us now. let's listen to rudy giuliani here. let's listen again to how he talks about why he says pardons would not be unheard of, say, in a case like this. >> my advice to the president of the united states as his lawyer is no pardons. it would change the momentum we have now, a strong one. you see the polls moving in the president's favor against mueller. i said he shouldn't pardon anybody. the president said to me he shouldn't pardon anybody. i said after the investigation is over, it has to be considered a governmental matter, not by me. what the history has been is these things get cleaned up. ford did it. reagan did it. carter did it. clinton did it, and bush did it in political investigations. >> you're saying after the probe is over, did may -- it may be cleaned up with pardons? >> if people were unfairly prosecuted. >> would you advise the president as giuliani is saying he would advise him, no pardons? >> good morning. that's not a signal to all those out there and may something against the president's interests, i don

joey jackson, you are the legal analyst.t is the latest filing about paul manafort allegedly trying to manipulate a witness telling you about the scope andy of thi investigation? >> well, initially you have to understand that prosecutors play through the whistle and what i mean by that is that even though the case is not yet gone to court, they are still investigating what you are doing. they're not relying upon the evidence they collected. here is why it is a bad idea to witness tamper. number one, you could get your bail revoked as here. and you should understand that the reffo case of bail is based upon a hearing of probable cause. not you definitely did it. but there is probable cause to believe you committed some type of new violationnd in this case witness tampering. number two, it could lead to fresh charges. and more importantly, number three, it could be introduced in your case as consciousness of guilt. what are you tampering with witnesses for if you didn't do anything wrong. and so it says that it is highly signi

me to talk about this, daniel litt man, reporter and co-author of "the political playbook," and joey jackson legal analyst and criminal defense attorney. good morning to you. >> good morning. >> daniel, let's start with you. the president was sure in discussing his short list to highlight that he has two women on the list and under consideration. i mean, why would the president add that? to potentially lower the votes of two female republican senators who are questions now, lisa murkowski, susan collins? >> i definitely think that's a factor. a lot of democrats and progressives are going to label any nominee of the president's anti-woman and say that the end of roe v. wade is close. and so that they would unsettle that case. so if the president picks a woman, conservatives believe that it might be less likely that the democratic argument would gain traction because they would ask how could a woman be anti-woman. and so that's kind of the thinking that goes behind the white house take on whether to pick a woman. >> joey, to you, the president will not ask his potential nominees the short list

i talked to cnn legal analyst joey jackson about the legal ramifications of all of this. >> the issuee perspective, what are legislators doing to support and otherwise insure quality service for people looking to get these procedures? are there regulations to ensure that not only medical doctors, but medical doctors who are board certified in specifically plastic surgery or other issues, you know, are there those types of laws set up in various states to protect people? that's number one. number two, what are the staffing requirements? are the staff who are assigned at these procedures, do they have the requisite training skill and experience? number three, where are the procedures being held? are they being held in office? if they're in office, what are the regulations, if any, or are they simply guidelines? which are nice rules but means they're rules, not specific guidelines, or are there requirements that they be done at hospitals and outpatient facilities? those are the things that state legislators can do. every state is a sovereign entity into itself and they pass their own law

with us, joey jackson and cnn law enforcement analyst, special agent josh campbell.ou. we heard the term, danger to the community. that was a direct quote, what the judge said about manafort. why? >> well, i think because if you look at the alleged behavior, it's problematic, right? the fact is, is that when you're out on bail and of course he was on $10 million, the fact is that you have to comport with the law and when you don't do that, and you allegedly reach out to other witnesses in an effort to have them tailor your testimony in a way that's consistent to your defense, that becomes problematic. understand that, ana, all you need is probable cause to believe that those things occurred in order to get you back in and so i think the judge was none too pleased with his behavior, his alleged conduct, and showed him as much by putting him back in, and just quickly, here's why it's important. number one, obviously, when you engage in this alleged behavior, again, probable cause, he's not guilty of it at this point, you know, it allows you to be put back in but more i